top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Wise Intervention

If the Centre’s response to the NEET protests has been an admixture of vacillation, force and defensiveness, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s unequivocal endorsement of Gen Z may prove to be the most politically astute intervention since the agitation began. By recognising the legitimacy of young Indians’ grievances instead of questioning their patriotism, Bhagwat may have prevented a crisis over examination leaks from becoming a lasting rupture with the ruling BJP’s future electorate. While...

Wise Intervention

If the Centre’s response to the NEET protests has been an admixture of vacillation, force and defensiveness, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s unequivocal endorsement of Gen Z may prove to be the most politically astute intervention since the agitation began. By recognising the legitimacy of young Indians’ grievances instead of questioning their patriotism, Bhagwat may have prevented a crisis over examination leaks from becoming a lasting rupture with the ruling BJP’s future electorate. While protesters are readily caricatured as troublemakers or political pawns, Bhagwat has consciously rejected that temptation. By insisting that young demonstrators are neither anti-national nor outsiders but India’s own next generation, he has reframed the debate from one of confrontation to one of responsibility. While the protests spearheaded by Abhijit Dipke and his Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) took a notably ugly turn, leading many citizens to cast aspersions on the motivations on the protestors and their credibility, the controversy over examination leaks is nevertheless a serious and burning issue reflecting deeper anxieties among millions of young Indians about fairness, merit and opportunity. Bhagwat’s admission that “something that shouldn’t happen” had indeed happened, and that such failures indicated “a deficiency” requiring correction, was an important recognition that government institutions must be capable of introspection. Equally striking was his understanding of generational change. His observation that his own generation accepted authority while Gen Z demands logical answers was a graceful acceptance that democratic engagement has evolved. Young Indians today question institutions because they have higher expectations of them. Mature democracies do not fear such questioning, and that is what Bhagwat’s remarks implied. His approach may carry considerable political significance for the ruling BJP. India is one of the world’s youngest democracies, with more than half its population below the age of 35. By 2029, Gen Z will constitute one of the country’s most influential electoral constituencies. Alienating them through dismissive rhetoric or excessive force would have been politically costly. Bhagwat’s unequivocal expression of trust - going so far as to say that if asked to trust blindly, he would trust Gen Z - offers a markedly different message. It tells young Indians that criticism of administrative failures need not place them outside the national mainstream. In doing so, Bhagwat may also have blunted attempts by politically motivated groups to convert legitimate student grievances into a broader campaign of perpetual confrontation. Every democracy contains forces that seek to transform dissatisfaction into lasting alienation from constitutional politics. The surest antidote is not denunciation but through engagement. By recognising the legitimacy of protest while emphasising dialogue and democratic methods, Bhagwat has reduced the space for those seeking to escalate anger into indiscriminate agitation.

Beyond the ‘Truth Serum’

Narcoanalysis is often sensationalised as a “truth serum”, but in reality, it is a scientific investigative aid grounded in neuroscience and forensic psychology.

In an era where crime has become increasingly sophisticated, law-enforcement agencies are compelled to rely on science as much as instinct. Among the most debated tools in this scientific arsenal is narcoanalysis, often sensationalised as a “truth serum” test. While critics question its ethics and reliability, narcoanalysis, when applied lawfully and scientifically, has proved to be a valuable investigative aid, particularly in complex and deadlocked cases.


Narcoanalysis involves the controlled administration of barbiturates such as sodium pentothal (sodium thiopental), sodium amytal, or similar drugs that depress the central nervous system. These substances induce a semi-conscious state in which higher cognitive inhibitions are lowered. The scientific premise rests on neuroscience and psychology: when cortical control is suppressed, a subject becomes less guarded, allowing spontaneous verbalisation of memories that may be consciously suppressed during conventional interrogation. Trained forensic psychologists, assisted by anaesthesiologists, conduct questioning in this altered mental state, ensuring medical safety and procedural discipline.


From a neural and philosophical standpoint, narcoanalysis recognises the layered nature of human cognition. Memory is not always accessible through conscious recall; fear, guilt, or trauma often block truthful disclosure. By chemically reducing mental resistance, narcoanalysis can allow access to subconscious recollections.


India’s experience with narcoanalysis includes several high-profile criminal investigations. In the Nithari serial killings case, narcoanalysis of the accused reportedly helped investigators reconstruct timelines and locate corroborative evidence when the probe had reached a standstill. Similarly, during the Telgi fake stamp paper scam, narcoanalysis was used to unravel the scale of the conspiracy and identify critical links, leading to further recoveries and arrests. In cases involving organised crime and terrorism, the technique has often served as a breakthrough mechanism.


The judiciary has acknowledged this investigative utility while firmly drawing constitutional boundaries. In Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010), the Supreme Court held that involuntary narcoanalysis is unconstitutional, as it violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) and the right to personal liberty under Article 21. However, the judgement did not discard narcoanalysis altogether. Instead, it carved out a lawful space for its voluntary use, subject to strict safeguards.


The Court clarified that narcoanalysis may be conducted only with the free, informed consent of the subject, recorded before a judicial magistrate, with access to legal counsel and full disclosure of medical and legal consequences. Crucially, while statements made during narcoanalysis are not admissible as evidence, the court recognised that facts discovered as a result of such statements may be admissible, provided they are independently verified. Thus, if narcoanalysis leads to the discovery of a weapon, location, or material fact, and such discovery is corroborated independently, it can assume evidentiary value not because of the statement itself, but because of the factual discovery it enables.


Indian courts have, on occasion, acknowledged the relevance of scientific interrogation techniques. The Bombay High Court, in cases such as Ramchandra Ram Reddy v. State of Maharashtra, emphasises narcoanalysis and related forensic tests as necessary modern investigative tools, provided they are conducted ethically, scientifically, and under judicial oversight. While courts remain cautious, there is judicial appreciation of science-led investigation when constitutional safeguards are respected.


Institutions such as the Directorate of Forensic Science Services (DFS) and Gujarat FSL have further strengthened the credibility of narcoanalysis by developing it within a forensic psychology framework, adhering to international medical and ethical standards. Their work demonstrates that narcoanalysis, when conducted by experts rather than interrogators, can align with both science and law.


Narcoanalysis is neither a magic wand nor a mediaeval coercive practice. It is a scientific investigative aid, meant to supplement—not supplant—traditional evidence. Used voluntarily, cautiously, and professionally, it can illuminate investigative paths otherwise hidden. In the balance between civil liberties and societal interest in justice, narcoanalysis deserves not dismissal but disciplined acceptance within the rule of law.


 

(Kumar is a former IPS officer and forensic consultant to Assam government. Reddy is Forensic Psychologist & Corporate Security & Loss Prevention Executive. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page